National Monuments - To be or not to be?

Tater Head

Hoo are you looking at?
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
236
What are your thoughts on President Obamas use of the antiquities act to designate national monuments without any congressional over site or public input? While I am all for national monument and protecting lands like these from further development and destruction. I believe that it should be put before more than just one person before making such a big decision. Decisions like these affect many people usually ranchers that have grazing allotments,snowmobiling/motorcycle groups among others that I feel should have their voices heard. Here are a few links to some of Web sites if you want to read more about it... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Monuments_of_the_United_States

http://m.seattlepi.com/news/article/Sierra-Club-pushes-for-Idaho-national-monument-5628613.php.

http://www.woodallscm.com/2013/03/proscons-on-new-natl-monuments/
 
Teddy Roosevelt did the same thing with a large number of places. I don't have a list at hand, but a number of our current national parks started as national monuments designated as such simply by Roosevelt or another president.
 
This one has potential to get a little heated. I know opinions are like a-holes, but here's mine. I have a degree in political science, so I've given this quite a bit of thought over the years.

First, what @mak1277 is correct. The antiquities act has been key in protecting many of our most treasured places and national parks. I honestly don't think we would ever see another national monument, park, etc. ever again were it not the law of the land. Especially considering how broken our political system is.

The reason the antiquities act is an executive power not subject to congressional oversight is very deliberate. In a large part, congress is built to be a slow, gridlocked kind of system. The executive branch, not so much. And that's on purpose. There are perks to getting elected president. If the executive branch had no executive powers and all of it was subject to 535 asshat lawmakers giving the thumbs up or down, then what's the point of even having a president? It sucks when the pres does things that don't align with what you'd like done, but it is the power we as a country gave them, and when it's a pres on your side, it feels a lot better.

Congress is gridlocked beyond comprehension, so sometimes things like this are good thing for just getting things done. As I said above, nothing would ever happen if it were up to them. I'm not passing judgment on whether or not any specific monument is right or wrong by saying that, but the fact is that congress, and our government as a whole no longer serve the people of this country. They serve campaign donors and corporations that keep them elected. I'm talking about all of them - blue, red, left, right, etc. Remove the money from politics and then I'd have a reasonable amount of faith they could manage doing the right thing based on the pros and cons of a given situation because they would need to listen to their constituents to get reelected.

Also, just because something becomes a monument doesn't necessarily shut it down to ATVs, grazing, etc. How the land is managed is still quite open from what I understand. For example, cows and motorcycles are still plentiful in the Grand Staircase.

So yeah. I like the antiquities act. And I generally like monuments and managing our public lands in a way that makes them the most viable for generations to come and still able to be enjoyed by the public in reasonable ways. In some situations that might mean wilderness designations, and in others I'm all for ATVs, etc. Grazing I have a pretty hard time with on any public land.
 
Not sure if anyone else has heard of the Owhee initiative? If your not familiar with it came about when they were trying to block out a huge chunk of Owhee county as a wilderness area. It's pretty amazing what they were able to accomplish. All of the stake holders came together and came up with solutions that all could agree on.Every one had a voice in the matter. I guess I would like to see this model used. It's been proven it works. Don't get me wrong there is nothing worse than the smell of cow shit when your hiking on public land but living in a ranching community I understand the need for it. Here is a link to the Owhee Initiatives Web site you should read it if you have a minute. Its pretty cool what they came up with.... http://www.owyheeinitiative.org/history.htm
 
The reason the antiquities act is an executive power not subject to congressional oversight is very deliberate. In a large part, congress is built to be a slow, gridlocked kind of system. The executive branch, not so much. And that's on purpose. There are perks to getting elected president. If the executive branch had no executive powers and all of it was subject to 535 asshat lawmakers giving the thumbs up or down, then what's the point of even having a president?

Checks and balances. The legislative branch creates the law, the executive branch enforces the law, the judicial branch interprets the law. No one branch should have undue power over the other. The President only has the authority of the Antiquities Act because Congress passed it in the first place. If Congress doesn't want the White House to have that executive authority, then Congress can repeal the Act.
 
I agree its the presidents option and I am happy to see it used. I was just at a local lake yesterday that used to be "no gas powered boats" and with the exception of the farmlands that border the lake it was as close to wilderness as you can get. Once its classification was changed, the farmlands became summer homes, one sitting on top another and large power boats and jet skies now fill the water.
 
I think any protection for public lands is a good thing. I think we have a pretty good balance in our public lands. Others will disagree and argue for more drilling or even more protection. I like to see more areas protected, even if it means some other areas are open for drilling. I will say that people here are still fuming over what Clinton did, and if Obama did something similar with Greater Canyonlands I think the fury would be so great I would probably have to move to get away from it.

Most presidents have used the antiquities act, except Bush, I don't think he used it. Also as others have stated all of our parks, with the exception of Canyonlands were first created as National Monuments first. It's quite amazing that we were able to create Canyonlands as a National Park without the antiquities act, I am sure it would not happen in this day and age.
 
I think any protection for public lands is a good thing. I think we have a pretty good balance in our public lands. Others will disagree and argue for more drilling or even more protection. I like to see more areas protected, even if it means some other areas are open for drilling. I will say that people here are still fuming over what Clinton did, and if Obama did something similar with Greater Canyonlands I think the fury would be so great I would probably have to move to get away from it.

Most presidents have used the antiquities act, except Bush, I don't think he used it. Also as others have stated all of our parks, with the exception of Canyonlands were first created as National Monuments first. It's quite amazing that we were able to create Canyonlands as a National Park without the antiquities act, I am sure it would not happen in this day and age.
16 presidents have created national monuments since the antiquities act came about in 1906. The only three not to do so we're Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
 
When national monuments are created, it's with a long term vision for preservation. Ranchers, recreational vehicle enthusiasts and the like usually only have short term interests in mind, though I respect their interests and think they have a right to be heard. Oil companies and corporations have only profits in mind and don't care what gets destroyed in their quest to get them. They can go f%@& themselves and should be completely left out of the process, though in reality they buy their way into Congress with lobbyists, contributions, candidates in their pocket, etc. With that in mind, thank goodness for the Antiquities Act. Just my unheated opinion. :cool:
 
Ranchers, recreational vehicle enthusiasts and the like usually only have short term interests in mind

Really?

Ranchers, short term, ahhh, yeah, okay... Took three, four generations to get here, definitely looking to piss it all way before the kids can reap any benefit. Makes sense to me.

And I know that I, as a recreational vehicle enthusiast, certainly wouldn't want to see my kids, let alone my grandkids, enjoy any of the same opportunity I have. No sir! Just give me the short term. That's all I'm concerned with. Me and everyone else that enjoys the same kind of things or has the same kind of family heritage I do. Short term. Those are the only interests we are intelligent enough to consider.

Let me paint with your broad brush for just a moment. Environmental activists always seem to be saying that anyone who does not agree with them simply isn't smart enough to take part in the conversation.

I get sooooooo sick of that attitude. Sick to death of it.

In recent times, when National Monuments are created, it's with political interests in mind. Nothing noble about it. Nothing far sighted. Just the machine being the machine. If it would have served their political interests, the recent presidents who did not create any, would have. But it better served their political interests not to. So they didn't. Nothing noble or far sighted about that, either. Just politicos being politicos.

- DAA
 
Really?

Ranchers, short term, ahhh, yeah, okay... Took three, four generations to get here, definitely looking to piss it all way before the kids can reap any benefit. Makes sense to me.

I think that we need to think long term, very long term. 3 or 4 generations? A drop in the bucket, in the scheme of things.

Let me paint with your broad brush for just a moment. Environmental activists always seem to be saying that anyone who does not agree with them simply isn't smart enough to take part in the conversation

No one is attacking you at all, let alone your heritage. You can drive your 4x4 in plenty of places, but you will always bitch about loosing access to others.

Oh, I'm sorry, am I painting you with a "broad brush"?

My personal belief is that folks on both sides of the issue want more than they can get. I believe talking is the best way to solve differences. I am an environmental pinko left wing motherf**ker, and I think you are intelligent enough to take part. I disagree with everything in your post, but I won't put you down.
The National Monuments you are probably referring to (again look long term, at which presidents actually created a lot of our Monuments and why- probably a good thread subject), always have a political component, as does your desire to not have them. Nothing far sighted? Maybe not if you are one of the few who live there, but to the vast majority of people who inhabit this planet these monuments are tremendous assets.
 
... as does your desire to not have them.

I don't disagree with everything in your post. Some of it, but far from all. The part I quoted above though, is not correct. If I gave that impression it was due to poor communication.

- DAA
 
I don't disagree with everything in your post. Some of it, but far from all. The part I quoted above though, is not correct. If I gave that impression it was due to poor communication.

- DAA

You clearly didn't understand what I wrote either (the fact that you took only part of the statement I made probably has a great deal to do with it, and I suggest you read the entire sentence, specifically this part: I respect their {ranchers, recreationists} interests and think they have a right to be heard), but that's exactly what I expected you would do. Greg responded much more eloquently than I ever could so I'm just going to leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
When national monuments are created, it's with a long term vision for preservation. Ranchers, recreational vehicle enthusiasts and the like usually only have short term interests in mind, though I respect their interests and think they have a right to be heard. Oil companies and corporations have only profits in mind and don't care what gets destroyed in their quest to get them. They can go f%@& themselves and should be completely left out of the process, though in reality they buy their way into Congress with lobbyists, contributions, candidates in their pocket, etc. With that in mind, thank goodness for the Antiquities Act. Just my unheated opinion. :cool:

I think I get what you are saying... Ranchers and the like having short term interest... The short term intersts being for ranchers being grazing land for their herds with the longevity being focused on their life time and a few years into thier childrens but not much further than that, leaving the the rest of the battle for their kids to fight. And the same can apply to recreational vehicle enthusiasts for their hobby/sport. Envormental Activists usually want to shut the land access to everyone from everything while ranchers and the like want all access all the time for what they want/need the land for. As to those sects that fall into the top 10% or so of the economy, they seem to want to rape the land for all its worth. In all areas there are some excptions that run to the extreme ends of the spectrum. What needs to happen and what seems to happen for the most part is striking a balance between public access and land protection.



Really?
Ranchers, short term, ahhh, yeah, okay... Took three, four generations to get here, definitely looking to piss it all way before the kids can reap any benefit. Makes sense to me.
And I know that I, as a recreational vehicle enthusiast, certainly wouldn't want to see my kids, let alone my grandkids, enjoy any of the same opportunity I have. No sir! Just give me the short term. That's all I'm concerned with. Me and everyone else that enjoys the same kind of things or has the same kind of family heritage I do. Short term. Those are the only interests we are intelligent enough to consider.
Let me paint with your broad brush for just a moment. Environmental activists always seem to be saying that anyone who does not agree with them simply isn't smart enough to take part in the conversation.
I get sooooooo sick of that attitude. Sick to death of it.
In recent times, when National Monuments are created, it's with political interests in mind. Nothing noble about it. Nothing far sighted. Just the machine being the machine. If it would have served their political interests, the recent presidents who did not create any, would have. But it better served their political interests not to. So they didn't. Nothing noble or far sighted about that, either. Just politicos being politicos.
- DAA

DAA, I may not know you but through your posts here, and maybe one day I will get to hike or camp with you, but I must say that to me you did come off to me as being a bit abrasive in your post. Maybe you meant it to be that way, maybe you didn't... either way, when I read it, that is how it came off to me.

We are all individuals with differing opinions and that is fine... that's what makes the world go round and why something like the Antiquities Act was created, for when people's opinions dont come together as a majority, someone can step in and take charge, political intersts or not. While I would agree that the Federal system is long over due for a major overhall, I am not the one calling the shots there.

For anyone who may think that my opinion may sway to one side or another, let me tell you this, I am probally the most centered person I know. While I do enjoy hiking, camping, etc, I, myself, am a recreational vehicle enthusiast as well... I had a Jeep, and I plan on getting another 4x4 again soon. I grew up with trikes, quads, dirtbikes, etc. I see the argument on all sides... as said earlier in this post, a balance can only be had if all sides are willing to compromise with each other for what's best for everyone. Yes there will still be those on each side that don't get everything they want that will make waves for the other sides, but you will have that no matter what. Give in to the Enviromentalists, and everyone else will complain that they should have access to the land, open the land to just hikers and campers, and enviormentalists will try to get the land closed becuse of some reason while offroad enthusists will argue that they should be allowed to use the land since hikers and campers are able to use it.

If you want to take that one step further, the Recreational Vehicle sect can be broken down farther yet and they all bicker and fight amoungst each other over who should be allowed access and who destroys the land more than the other. It is never ending.

So what do you do? Open the land to a free for all? Shut it down completely? Try to strike a compromise? There is no clear cut answer, and so it must be handled on an idividual basis depending on the terrain and enviorment. For example, near me is an area called the Albany Pine Bush, it is open to the public, but only for non motorized access. This area would be awesome to explore on a motorized vehicle, but that is a fight that will not be won. The pine bush is a specialized enviormental area and heavily protected by laws, rules, regulations, and hefty penalties if broken as well as over seen by a trustee board. As an offroad vehicle enthusiast, I would like access to this land, I am allowed to ride my pedal bike there, I should be allowed to drive my 4x4 there too, right? Well in this case that would be wrong and I understand why. This area is unique and should be protected, but not to the expense that the public not be allowed to come and view its beauty. And this is where the balance comes into play, it is open to those activities that cause the least amount of impact on this particular envorment as possible. They do not have all trails open all the time and some will be closed for one reason or another, but you are allowed to ride your bike, hike, etc on the trails only. Everything else that happens off trail or in closed areas must be permited.

I guess I have said my part on this delicate topic, feel free to point out where you think I am wrong in my opinion... I know someone will.
 
I think one of the points that hasn't been mentioned regarding more national monuments is this:
Many of the places are protected already. If it's an official wilderness area, I would need a very compelling case made to change the status to national monument. Changing the classification doesn't really add enough more protection to justify the increase in visitation to an area that is supposedly being more protected.

If it's BLM or Forest Service land, why not just make it a wilderness area to give it more protections?

I think there needs to be a more compelling reason then political pandering to make a place a monument. Beyond that, where do you draw the line?

I guess while I'm at it (and maybe this would be a better thead of it's own) I personally hate the misuse of the word "Wilderness". I hate seeing in the news or hearing about something that happened "in the wilderness" when the location the event (death, rescued hiker, bear mauling, whatever) IS NOT WILDERNESS. Yeah, it might be BLM or Forest Service administered land, but there's a big difference in practice and policy between (official) wilderness and not.
 
If it's BLM or Forest Service land, why not just make it a wilderness area to give it more protections?

I think there needs to be a more compelling reason then political pandering to make a place a monument. Beyond that, where do you draw the line?

That's an interesting point. I guess what it makes me wonder is, what really is a monument? It's clearly not the same as wilderness and as can be seen in the GSENM, it doesn't stop things like grazing and motor sports. Anyone know? I suppose I could google, but that would require extra reading. :sleep:
 
I think one of the points that hasn't been mentioned regarding more national monuments is this:
Many of the places are protected already. If it's an official wilderness area, I would need a very compelling case made to change the status to national monument. Changing the classification doesn't really add enough more protection to justify the increase in visitation to an area that is supposedly being more protected.

If it's BLM or Forest Service land, why not just make it a wilderness area to give it more protections?

I think there needs to be a more compelling reason then political pandering to make a place a monument. Beyond that, where do you draw the line?

I guess while I'm at it (and maybe this would be a better thead of it's own) I personally hate the misuse of the word "Wilderness". I hate seeing in the news or hearing about something that happened "in the wilderness" when the location the event (death, rescued hiker, bear mauling, whatever) IS NOT WILDERNESS. Yeah, it might be BLM or Forest Service administered land, but there's a big difference in practice and policy between (official) wilderness and not.

Because getting congress to create new wilderness is practically impossible these days. I think they designated the first new wilderness area in over 5 years a few months ago, and that was in an area where the people supported it, making it happen here in Utah would be impossible.

What I would like to see happen is congress to agree on a size limit for new monuments, I don't want to see the antiquities act go away altogether, but I don't think any one person should have the power to designate such large swaths of land by himself. I mean 1.9 million acres is what they want for Greater Canyonlands, the fact that one person can do that with the stroke of a pen is a little bit scary. Even if they limited it to 500,000 acres it would be much more reasonable. However its never going to happen in today's political climate. Compromise kills your chances for reelection.
 
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
gnwatts Utah National Monuments, good & bad General Discussion 12
TheMountainRabbit News Release: Yellowstone National Park increases protection for bears and visitor safety by implementing changes to two bear management areas General Discussion 14
scatman The Gallatin River, Bighorn and Fawn Passes, Yellowstone National Park - September 7, 2023 Backpacking 14
futurafree government shutdown effects on national forests? General Discussion 21
BJett Packrafting the Obed National Wild & Scenic River - Tennessee On The Water 1
fossana New Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni National Monument General Discussion 4
J York Fire, Mojave National Preserve. Aug 2023 Resource Discussions 3
Janice Field Trip - Washington Post podcast about national parks General Discussion 0
I Rescue Creek - Yellowstone National Park - June 3, 2023 Backpacking 15
scatman Rescue Creek - Yellowstone National Park - June 3, 2023 Backpacking 56
TractorDoc Cuyahoga Valley National Park (again!) 06/04/2023 Hiking & Camping 6
TractorDoc Cuyahoga Valley National Park 05/28/2023 Hiking & Camping 20
scatman Rescue Creek - Yellowstone National Park Meet Up (Members Only) 19
D Need suggestions -Beaverhead-Deerlodge National forrest, and Phillipsburg, MT Trip Planning 5
Ted California couple killed in Yosemite National Park rockslide identified by park officials General Discussion 0
NorthwestWanderer Backpacking Grand Teton National Park : Fossil Pass,Fox Creek Pass,Indian Lake,Alaska Basin,Hurricane Pass,Ice Floe Lake,& Snowdrift Lake Backpacking 19
fossana New National Monument planned in Southern NV General Discussion 3
canadug Hiker death in Zion National park :( Hiking & Camping 32
F Frontenac National Park, Quebec, Canada Hiking & Camping 2
J Mojave National Preserve Monsoon Aug. 3, 2022 Trip Planning 2
scatman Shoshone Lake Lollipop Loop - Yellowstone National Park - July 24, 2022 Backpacking 63
Absarokanaut Flooding in Yellowstone National Park and Adjacent Areas of Montana Today June 13, 2022 General Discussion 82
Dreamer El Yunque National Forest Hiking & Camping 3
Rockskipper pay-for-bot-scanning services for National Park campsites - interesting comments General Discussion 1
BJett Big South Fork National River & Recreation Area Packraft/Backpack Loop (TN) Backpacking 6
norwegianxplorer 7 days backpacking Breheimen/Glacier Home National Park in Norway Backpacking 2
pstm13 Rocky Mountain National Park Mid June with Kids Trip Planning 7
pstm13 Rocky Mountain National Park Mid June with Kids Trip Planning 0
Rockskipper Application Period Open For 2023 Private River Trips Through Grand Canyon National Park General Discussion 0
norwegianxplorer Backpacking SAREK NATIONAL PARK, Arctic Sweden, Camping Above RAPADALEN delta. Backpacking 7
balzaccom SAR in our national parks Trip Planning 8
S Mentasta Mountains, Wrangell St. Elias National Park and Preserve- family backpack Backpacking 1
Tim Valentine Point Reyes National Seashore December 2021 Hiking & Camping 14
scatman Grizzly Lake - Yellowstone National Park - September - 2022 Meet Up (Members Only) 149
norwegianxplorer Finding Hidden Glacier, 9 days backpacking Jotunheimen National Park Pt3, Norway. Trip Reports 0
P A short hike on the AT in Shenandoah National Park Hiking & Camping 0
norwegianxplorer Highest Mountain in Norway, Galdhøpiggen, the start of a 9 day backpacking trip in Jotunheimen national park Backpacking 0
norwegianxplorer 5 days Backpacking Rondane National Park, Norway Backpacking 3
norwegianxplorer Backpacking Norway, Femundsmarka National Park Pt 3, Grand Scandinavian Hiking & Backpacking Tour Ep4 Backpacking 0
scatman Gneiss Creek Part 2 - Yellowstone National Park - September 18, 2021 Hiking & Camping 0
norwegianxplorer Backpacking Rogen Nature Reserve, Sweden & Femundsmarka National Park, Norway Pt2 Backpacking 2
scatman Hayden Valley Loop - Yellowstone National Park - September 17, 2021 Hiking & Camping 34
scatman North Pitchstone Trail, Headwaters of Ouzel Creek, Bechler River and Mr. Bubbles(?) - Yellowstone National Park - September 13, 2021 Backpacking 36
norwegianxplorer 10 days Backpacking Femundsmarka National Park and Rogen Nature Reserve, Norway and Sweden Backpacking 8
scatman Gneiss Creek - Yellowstone National Park - September 8, 2021 Backpacking 20
TeamJenkins17 2022 Teton Wilderness/Shoshone National Forest Trip Trip Planning 0
fossana CA statewide National Forest closure through 17 Sep General Discussion 1
scatman Snake River Lollipop Loop - Yellowstone National Park - August 8, 2021 Backpacking 45
kansas Good map of Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument? Trip Planning 5
chandlerwest Glacier National Park - June 2021 Hiking & Camping 8

Similar threads

Back
Top